Thami Nompula MBA Dissertation March 2007 - Rhodes eResearch ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Unfortunately, labour turnover has become a common phenomenon globally among knowledge workers (Costello, 2001; Martin 2003). Martin (2003) conducted a study on tenure and labour turnover of knowledge employees in Australia, Europe, Japan and the United States between 1980 and 2000 and found that employees in Japan are more likely to stay longer with one employer than is the case in Europe and Australia. Findings in Europe showed that labour turnover was low in France, Germany, the Netherlands and Norway while higher in the rest of the continent for all categories of employees. In the United States the average professional holds 18 different jobs before they retire. This suggests that professionals stay for less than three years in a job throughout their career. Martin (2003) defines labour turnover as a flow concept measured over a period, usually a year. This definition includes all leavers during the period, irrespective of whether they left voluntarily or due to redundancy or dismissals or retirement. Morrell, Loan-Clarke and Wilkinson (2001:6) define labour turnover as a “voluntary cessation of membership of an organisation by an employee of that organisation”. It is important to understand labour turnover within the context of employees leaving voluntarily because they control the decision to leave, hence the high interest by organisations to understand and curtail this phenomenon. The term is commonly used to describe the number of employees leaving the organisation voluntarily. Generally, organisations need to pass the test of retaining the majority of employees that joined in permanent positions in a given year of reporting. In discussing labour turnover, this section will focus on the act of leaving and factors that influence employees’ decisions to leave the organisation voluntarily. 2.3.2 Factors that cause labour turnover among knowledge workers Given that some employees will leave their employer at some point in their career, it usually takes a while between the time they decide to leave and the actual time of departure (Drury, 2003; Kinnear, 1999; Kaye and Jordan-Evans, 2002). In addition to the time lag, there are various reasons why employees decided to leave (Kaye and Jordan-Evans, 2002; Stewart, 1997). It is generally accepted that either ‘push’ or ‘pull’ factors induce employees to leave their employer (Branham, 2005; Kaye and Jordan-Evans, 2002). Push factors refer to those factors inherent in 24
the organisation that cause or are perceived to have caused employees to leave; while pull factors refer to those influences that are found outside the organisation, beyond the control of the current employer, that cause employees to be pulled away from their employer (Branham, 2005). Under each of these factors, there are several causes of labour turnover and this section examines each to describe the number of employees leaving the organisation voluntarily. Generally, organisations need to pass the test of retaining the majority of employees that joined in permanent positions in a given year of reporting. In discussing labour turnover, this section will focus on the act of leaving and factors that influence employees’ decisions to leave the organisation of these factors in turn. The first subsection examines push factors and the subsequent one examines pull factors. 2.3.3 Push factors that cause labour turnover among knowledge workers The literature features numerous push factors that cause labour turnover among knowledge workers (BMR, 2004; Drury, 2003; Kinnear, 1999; Romano, 2002; World Bank, 2004). Each of the major factors identified will be examined in detail. A summary of these factors are presented in Table 2.1 for ease of reference and the definitions and details are contained in the text that follows. Table 2.1 Summary of push factors that cause labour turnover gleaned in the literature Factor Factor description number 1 disillusionment with the status quo; 2 dissonance between the employees’ contribution to the firm’s success and the financial rewards they receive; 3 professional dissatisfaction; 4 treated as labour instead of being regarded as capital; 5 lack of collegiality among co-workers; 6 poor relationship of knowledge workers with the organisation’s leadership; 7 unavailability of the requisite technology, equipment, resources and tools to carry out work; 8 lack of provision of career growth, learning, development and mentoring opportunities, and 9 Lack of scope to achieve work-life balance. 25
Page 1 and 2: AN EXPLORATORY INVESTIGATION OF THE
Page 3 and 4: Declaration I, Thami Ignatius Nompu
Page 5 and 6: Acknowledgements A number of people
Page 7 and 8: 2.2.4 Definition of knowledge work
Page 9 and 10: 3.6.2 Factors that influenced the c
Page 11 and 12: CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMEND
Page 13 and 14: Table 4.21 Sense of achievement ana
Page 15 and 16: LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A: The
Page 17 and 18: 1.1 Introduction CHAPTER 1: INTRODU
Page 19 and 20: 1.3 The National Energy Regulator T
Page 21 and 22: 1.5 The Importance of Knowledge Wor
Page 23 and 24: continuous success. South Africa, a
Page 25 and 26: 1.6.2 Cost of turnover and opportun
Page 27 and 28: 1.6.5 Staff Turnover at the Nationa
Page 29 and 30: 2.1 Introduction CHAPTER 2: LITERAT
Page 31 and 32: Knowledge-based organisations rely
Page 33 and 34: 2.2.5 Definition of a knowledge wor
Page 35 and 36: • Knowledge workers tend to work
Page 37 and 38: esent unnecessary supervision; they
Page 39: equipment, exist and are worth cult
Page 43 and 44: Although knowledge workers may be a
Page 45 and 46: Guest’s (2001) findings. The Hay
Page 47 and 48: ecruiters. In the United States top
Page 49 and 50: sustainable objectives both for the
Page 51 and 52: 2.5 The Work Dimension According to
Page 53 and 54: environment is more conducive to hi
Page 55 and 56: improved productivity and a longer
Page 57 and 58: 2.7.1 Quality of leadership Quality
Page 59 and 60: leave an organisation because senio
Page 61 and 62: 2.8.3 Capacity Building In an attem
Page 63 and 64: for staff working for regulatory in
Page 65 and 66: 3.1 Introduction CHAPTER 3: RESEARC
Page 67 and 68: inefficiencies of management may le
Page 69 and 70: 2004). Furthermore, because the int
Page 71 and 72: According to Walonick (2004), one o
Page 73 and 74: contained section one of the questi
Page 75 and 76: Wisniewski (2002) describes reliabi
Page 77 and 78: Of the 34 respondents, there were m
Page 79 and 80: As indicated in Figure 3.4, of the
Page 81 and 82: 3.8.7 Number of previous years work
Page 83 and 84: 3.8.9 Divisional distribution This
Page 85 and 86: The Chi test was used to test furth
Page 87 and 88: generated and these are attached as
Page 89 and 90: to a leader who believes in their v
Page 91 and 92:
Senge (1990) introduced the concept
Page 93 and 94:
According to the literature once kn
Page 95 and 96:
4.3.1 Job enrichment Seventy six pe
Page 97 and 98:
4.3.3 Control over work assignments
Page 99 and 100:
4.3.5 Challenging work For 70% of t
Page 101 and 102:
and RERA are continental initiative
Page 103 and 104:
Table 4.17: Exchange programmes wit
Page 105 and 106:
either work for two years for NERSA
Page 107 and 108:
4.5.1 Sense of achievement and numb
Page 109 and 110:
and Armstrong and Murlis’ (2004)
Page 111 and 112:
Table 4.25 Freedom to plan and exec
Page 113 and 114:
The next chapter explores in greate
Page 115 and 116:
need to create a favourable environ
Page 117 and 118:
5.3.3 Focus on the individual and g
Page 119 and 120:
5.4.1 Factors Analysis: factors tha
Page 121 and 122:
workers’ need for individualism a
Page 123 and 124:
Branham, L. (2005). Keeping the peo
Page 125 and 126:
Dumas, J. and Redish, J. (1999). A
Page 127 and 128:
Kaye, B. and Jordan-Evans, S. (1999
Page 129 and 130:
National Energy Regulator, (2006).
Page 131 and 132:
Sturgess, J. and Guest, D. (2001).
Page 133 and 134:
November 2006 Dear Colleague APPEND
Page 135 and 136:
SECTION 2: FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE Y
Page 137 and 138:
APPENDIX B: SOURCES OF RETENTION VA
Page 139 and 140:
38 Opportunities for feedback, self
Page 141 and 142:
Table 3: Opportunity to achieve per
Page 143 and 144:
Table 9: Information sharing 127 FR
Page 145 and 146:
Table 14: Scope to balance work and
Page 147 and 148:
Table 20: Scope to create desirable
Page 149 and 150:
Table 26: Job enrichment Table 27:
Page 151 and 152:
Table 31: Adequate remuneration, be
Page 153 and 154:
Table 37: Management that values in
Page 155:
Table 43: Reputation of the organis
show all

Thami Nompula MBA Dissertation March 2007 - Rhodes eResearch ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?